sarah jeong

@sarahjeong but, really, even intent is just a formal step if people really wanted to morph "threat" into a way to suppress legit speech

@bergmayer yep.

@bergmayer I think this case has way more to do with fleshing out what a true threat even is and how it works in the context of crim law

@bergmayer than anything to do with enforcement in the real world, or changing how juries actually operate.

@bergmayer Apply any test and I think the jury would have done the exact same analysis on the exact same evidence and come out with guilty

@sarahjeong yeah. like I said I think the intent std does *some* work but lots of weird thinking about how juries work going on in this case

@sarahjeong Like, the *purpose* of the jury is exactly to decide what the "truth" is about ultimately unknowable things like "intent"

@bergmayer Lot of layers of "know" here too-- like we're speculating right now on how juries operate but really we don't know that,